Thrasymachus, at any rate, is not entitled to complain, since he assumed this connexion between virtue and happiness in claim that justice is a virtue and justice is not it is less clear, that socrates is entitled to assume that justice is a human virtue. Khwaja nabeel asif u047073j dw7 topic 5: a defense of thrasymachus’ claim “justice is the advantage of the stronger” most people believe that they understand the essence of things like justice and virtue. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger he also claims that socrates’ arguments against that position stem from a naive set of beliefs about the real intentions of rulers, and an uncritical approach to the way words acquire their meaning. The consequence which irwin does allow is the intrinsic relationship between justice and happiness: justice makes one happy because justice is a dominant component of the intrinsic good of happiness (1995, 193), and as such, justice itself is an intrinsic good (1995, 254-6.
Start studying plato's the republic learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools according to thrasymachus, what is justice thrasymachus' claim that injustice pays better or socrates' claim that a just man has a better life his recent statement that the unjust man has a superior life to the. (14) considered from this standpoint, thrasymachus’ three statements about justice and its opposite are consistent because the other that thrasymachus refers to is the ruling tyrant: justice is obeying the laws set up by the ruler (statement #2 at 339b), and in obeying these laws the many are concerned for the other (statement #3 at 343c. Thrasymachus’ account of justice, claims reeve, ‘is a coherent and resourceful blend of ethical realism and semantic conventionalism, which identifies justice in each city with what is advantageous to its stronger ruler, and the semantic content of “justice” with what its particular laws prescribe’4 far from accepting that plato. But the point of socrates' analogy with the phycisian etc is that skills (which, according to thrasymachus, justice, or ruling falls under) are not practiced for one's self-interest, but for the interests of others, so socrates kind of does refute thrasymachus.
Thrasymachus discounts traditional moral values on the basis of what he sees as “reality” socrates does not dispute thrasymachus’ version of the way things are, and even demonstrates that cephalus’ conventional definition of virtue is insufficient yet socrates’ defense of justice, (like. Socrates - glaucon - thrasymachus yes, that is what i say, and i have given you my reasons and what of the unjust--does he claim to have more than the just man and to do more than is just but if i am right, then without justice i am delighted, thrasymachus, to see you not only nodding assent and dissent, but making answers which are. Thrasymachus says that he will provide the answer if he is provided his fee he then says that justice is whatever is in the interest of the stronger party in a given state justice is thus effected through power by people in power. Thrasymachus delivers a defense of his position based on real world evidence rulers treat the socrates criticizes thrasymachus’ claim that “justice is the interest of the stronger” by showing that rulers sometimes make errors and enjoin harmful things for themselves thrasymachus.
By the time glaucon and adeimantus finish their attacks, socrates is presented with a more viable defense of thrasymachus’ original position that justice is worthless the burden will be placed upon him, then, to demonstrate the truth of his original claim that the life is justice is preferable to the life of injustice. In defending the view that justice is the advantage of the stronger, thrasymachus puzzlingly claims that rulers never err and that any practitioner of a skill or expertise (τέχνη) is infallible in what follows, socrates offers a number of arguments directed against thrasymachus’ views. Thrasymachus asserts his claim that “justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger” (plato, grube, and reeve pg14) according to thrasymachus particularly in each city, justice is only to serve as the advantage of the established ruler (plato, grube, and reeve pg15. In the republic socrates reports that thrasymachus burst into the conversation like a lion socrates even claims that he and his interlocutor (polemarchus) were frightened the initial exchange between socrates and thrasymachus thus appears to be hostile in the argument that follows, socrates.
Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing thrasymachus' book 1 position that justice is “another's good” (358b-c, cf 343c), which thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame laws to their own advantage and call these laws' prescriptions “justice” (338d-339e) glaucon picks up this claim in. Polemarchus claims that justice is helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies and that this is what one owes people (332c) thrasymachus defines justice as the advantage or what is beneficial to the stronger (338c) rachel gk “plato’s defense of justice in the republic”,. Thus thrasymachus denies what socrates has said about justice (335c) -- namely, that whatever justice is, it is the specific excellence of man, and therefore that justice is the good (or, happy life) for man. Socrates turns over the floor to thrasymachus who professes that justice is 30 plato’s republic the advantage of the strongest (338c) and now claims that, although justice is virtuous and beneficial to others, especially in the political arena this position is called “immoralism,” the forthright defense of immorality as the.
D-bert, gilstrap, mowo progression of thrasymachus' argument socrates response: the stronger can be mistaken, so is it just that people obey the potentially wrong stronger the first argument thrasymachus: might makes right socrates argument: he is accused of being an informer and suggests that. Thrasymachus, breaking angrily into the discussion, declares that he has a better definition of justice to offer justice, he says, is nothing more than the advantage of the stronger though thrasymachus claims that this is his definition, it is not really meant as a definition of justice as much as it is a delegitimization of justice. Though thrasymachus claims that this is his definition, it is not really meant as a definition of justice as much as it is a delegitimization of justice he is saying that it does not pay to be just just behavior works to the advantage of other people, not to the person who behaves justly. Thrasymachus has just stated, justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger, and is now, at the request of socrates, clarifying his statement.